This very much depends on jurisdiction. Certainly in California more expensive cars, which use the same roads, pay more tax. Similarly with property, where a more expensive property (perhaps with one by the harbour with the view, which has the same amount of garbage etc. pays more property taxes.
Certainly in say Sydney, property tax (goes to state government revenue, only paid by large land owners) and council rates (pays for garbage collection, paid by everyone) are separate.
Here in the UK council tax is tied directly to the value of the property too - it's not because it needs more services, just an extension of the logic behind income tax, that people who can afford to pay more, pay more.
My point remains that you can't tie a link between "if it is property, it gets taxed".
But much like local services, IP needs government services to function -- it's the customs service that stop cheap knockoff imports, it's the legal system that makes others stop using your patent or levy the rent you as a patent/copyright owner seek. (And eventually, it's the police force and prison system that underwrites the legal system's power).
So it's really no different than other "taxes for services" arrangements.
> regardless of whether IP should be taxed, the argument for taxing it is not that all property is taxed - because it isn't.
That's true. But hard-to-hide expensive stuff (houses, cars, land) IS taxed because it is hard-to-hide and expensive, and patents could equally well have the same fate.
Certainly in say Sydney, property tax (goes to state government revenue, only paid by large land owners) and council rates (pays for garbage collection, paid by everyone) are separate.